Self-binding directives in psychiatric practice: a systematic review of reasons
The Lancet Psychiatry, ISSN: 2215-0366, Vol: 10, Issue: 11, Page: 887-895
2023
- 3Citations
- 10Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Review Description
Self-binding directives (SBDs) are an ethically controversial type of advance decision making involving advance requests for involuntary treatment. This study systematically reviewed the academic literature on psychiatric SBDs to elucidate reasons for and against their use in psychiatric practice. Full-text articles were thematically analysed within the international, interdisciplinary authorship team to produce a hierarchy of reasons. We found 50 eligible articles. Reasons for SBD use were promoting service user autonomy, promoting wellbeing and reducing harm, improving relationships, justifying coercion, stakeholder support, and reducing coercion. Reasons against SBD use were diminishing service user autonomy, unmanageable implementation problems, difficulties with assessing mental capacity, challenging personal identity, legislative issues, and causing harm. A secondary finding was a clarified concept of capacity-sensitive SBDs. Future pilot implementation projects that operationalise the clarified definition of capacity-sensitive SBDs with safeguards around informed consent, capacity assessment, support for drafting, and independent review are required.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215036623002213; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(23)00221-3; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85173134892&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37714174; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2215036623002213; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366%2823%2900221-3; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366%2823%2900221-3
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know